MUHAMMAD FAROOQ vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a bail application filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the petitioner, Muhammad Farooq, seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 378 registered at Police Station City Pakpattan under Sections 16 and 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 read with Section 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner, who was not alleged to have committed Zina but was implicated in the abduction and elopement, is entitled to further inquiry regarding his complicity. The Lahore High Court held that the case prima facie appeared to be one of elopement, and since the petitioner was not charged with committing Zina, his involvement constituted a matter for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner subject to furnishing appropriate surety bonds, thereby reinforcing the principle that tentative assessment of evidence favoring further inquiry warrants the concession of bail.
- Whether a petitioner not accused of committing Zina, but implicated in an abduction case, is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does a delay in lodging the F.I.R. combined with allegations pointing prima facie towards elopement rather than abduction make the case one of further inquiry?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 10(3), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Through this application under section 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code, petitioner Muhammad Farooq seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.378 registered on 26-11-2002 with Police Station City Pak pattan under sections 16/10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979) read with section 380, P.P.C.
2. The brief allegations' mentioned in the F.I.R. Are that petitioner and his co-- accused used to visit the house of the complainant. Muhammad Ramzan co-accused took Rs.12,000 as loan from the complainant and promised that he will return the same after one month. On the settled date, complainant had sent his were for obtaining the amount which was taken by Muhammad Ramzan co-accused, but she did not come back. Complainant on suspicion went to the house of Muhammad Ramzan co-accused and came to know that his were was abducted by the petitioner, Muhammad Ramzan, Muhammad Irshad and Mst. Asia. After about 1-1/2 months when she came back, told that she was deceitfully taken away by all the four accused and Muhammad Ramzan had also been committing Zina with her during this period besides pressurizing her to contract marriage with him.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that prosecution story is doubtful and the F.I.R. Has been lodged with the delay of four months wherein the petitioner is not alleged to have committed Zina with the alleged victim. Further contends that the petitioner has been involved falsely in the present case in order to make it a case of abduction, which at the most was a case of elopement.
4. Learned State Counsel opposes the bail application of the petitioner on various Wounds.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with their assistance. From the. Bare perusal of the F.I.R. It prima face seems to be a case of elopement.
The petitioner is not alleged to have committed Zina with Mst. Waziran, were of the complainant, Whether he had joined hands with Muhammad Ramzan co-accused in the commission of the offence is a question of --further inquiry, hence, the case of the petitioner is covered by subsection
(2) or section 497, Cr.P.C. In such circumstances he shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum or Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge. Pakpattan.